Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Great point, Mueller's report shows the dossier was a complete work of fiction

12346

Comments

  • CirrhosisDawg
    CirrhosisDawg Member Posts: 6,390
    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.

    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    Please point out the crime of obstruction that you say exists. Post relevant facts and articles. I'll wait here.
    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 38,561 Standard Supporter
    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.

    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    Please point out the crime of obstruction that you say exists. Post relevant facts and articles. I'll wait here.
    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    You're full of shit. Certainly no surprise there! Back up your mouth with the info you claim is correct. Man up sissy boy!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CirrhosisDawg
    CirrhosisDawg Member Posts: 6,390
    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.

    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    Please point out the crime of obstruction that you say exists. Post relevant facts and articles. I'll wait here.
    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    You're full of shit. Certainly no surprise there! Back up your mouth with the info you claim is correct. Man up sissy boy!
    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 38,561 Standard Supporter
    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.

    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    Please point out the crime of obstruction that you say exists. Post relevant facts and articles. I'll wait here.
    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    You're full of shit. Certainly no surprise there! Back up your mouth with the info you claim is correct. Man up sissy boy!
    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    Read it. Cleared of obstruction. You should try reading it.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHusky
    HHusky Member Posts: 24,332
    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.

    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    Please point out the crime of obstruction that you say exists. Post relevant facts and articles. I'll wait here.
    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    You're full of shit. Certainly no surprise there! Back up your mouth with the info you claim is correct. Man up sissy boy!
    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    Read it. Cleared of obstruction. You should try reading it.
    Westfield Malls Law School isn't taking our best a brightest.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CirrhosisDawg
    CirrhosisDawg Member Posts: 6,390
    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.

    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    Please point out the crime of obstruction that you say exists. Post relevant facts and articles. I'll wait here.
    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    You're full of shit. Certainly no surprise there! Back up your mouth with the info you claim is correct. Man up sissy boy!
    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    Read it. Cleared of obstruction. You should try reading it.
    I’m sure you can post the vindicating passage then. Unless you’re a “man of integrity” like bob.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 38,561 Standard Supporter
    edited March 2019
    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.

    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    Please point out the crime of obstruction that you say exists. Post relevant facts and articles. I'll wait here.
    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    You're full of shit. Certainly no surprise there! Back up your mouth with the info you claim is correct. Man up sissy boy!
    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    Read it. Cleared of obstruction. You should try reading it.
    I’m sure you can post the vindicating passage then. Unless you’re a “man of integrity” like bob.
    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.

    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    Please point out the crime of obstruction that you say exists. Post relevant facts and articles. I'll wait here.
    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    You're full of shit. Certainly no surprise there! Back up your mouth with the info you claim is correct. Man up sissy boy!
    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    Read it. Cleared of obstruction. You should try reading it.
    Westfield Malls Law School isn't taking our best a brightest.
    "In cataloging the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice."
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 115,434 Founders Club
    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.

    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    Please point out the crime of obstruction that you say exists. Post relevant facts and articles. I'll wait here.
    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    You're full of shit. Certainly no surprise there! Back up your mouth with the info you claim is correct. Man up sissy boy!
    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    Read it. Cleared of obstruction. You should try reading it.
    I’m sure you can post the vindicating passage then. Unless you’re a “man of integrity” like bob.
    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.

    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    Please point out the crime of obstruction that you say exists. Post relevant facts and articles. I'll wait here.
    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    You're full of shit. Certainly no surprise there! Back up your mouth with the info you claim is correct. Man up sissy boy!
    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    Read it. Cleared of obstruction. You should try reading it.
    Westfield Malls Law School isn't taking our best a brightest.
    "In cataloging the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice."
    But but but H has a line in there
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CirrhosisDawg
    CirrhosisDawg Member Posts: 6,390
    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.

    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    Please point out the crime of obstruction that you say exists. Post relevant facts and articles. I'll wait here.
    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    You're full of shit. Certainly no surprise there! Back up your mouth with the info you claim is correct. Man up sissy boy!
    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    Read it. Cleared of obstruction. You should try reading it.
    I’m sure you can post the vindicating passage then. Unless you’re a “man of integrity” like bob.
    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.

    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    Please point out the crime of obstruction that you say exists. Post relevant facts and articles. I'll wait here.
    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    You're full of shit. Certainly no surprise there! Back up your mouth with the info you claim is correct. Man up sissy boy!
    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    Read it. Cleared of obstruction. You should try reading it.
    Westfield Malls Law School isn't taking our best a brightest.
    "In cataloging the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice."
    Great job bobsled. So now you agree the plain text says he was not exonerated. Both explicitly, and in doj’s decision not to proescute.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 38,561 Standard Supporter
    edited March 2019
    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.

    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    Please point out the crime of obstruction that you say exists. Post relevant facts and articles. I'll wait here.
    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    You're full of shit. Certainly no surprise there! Back up your mouth with the info you claim is correct. Man up sissy boy!
    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    Read it. Cleared of obstruction. You should try reading it.
    I’m sure you can post the vindicating passage then. Unless you’re a “man of integrity” like bob.
    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.

    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    Please point out the crime of obstruction that you say exists. Post relevant facts and articles. I'll wait here.
    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    You're full of shit. Certainly no surprise there! Back up your mouth with the info you claim is correct. Man up sissy boy!
    You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.
    Read it. Cleared of obstruction. You should try reading it.
    Westfield Malls Law School isn't taking our best a brightest.
    "In cataloging the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice."
    Great job bobsled. So now you agree the plain text says he was not exonerated. Both explicitly, and in doj’s decision not to proescute.
    It says he didn't commit obstruction but I guess being a liberal you need it spelled out in those exact words and then maybe a romper room style explanation. Fuck off.

    What dose 'No actions that that constitute obstructive conduct" mean to you?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter